----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
>
>
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I saw that, and it was more than I expected. I read it carefully, and
saw
> > that the actual decrease was 8%. With a 50% price increase and a drop
in
> > the dot.com ecconomy (is California in a recession now?), I would have
> > expected at least a 5% drop. Still, I must admit that it is better than
I
> > expected.
> >
> California isn't really in a recession, unemployment is still around 4% in
the
> bay area. Real estate is experiencing a downturn, but it was artificially
> high anyway.
>
> > > I'm in the Bay area, >500 miles North of L.A.
> > >
> >
> > Right, and I couldn't get numbers for the bay area. But, LA is the
largest
> > metro area in calf, right?
> >
> Well, it's the largest metro in the country, isn't it? But the bay area
> S.F./Oakland/San Jose is also one of the largest in the country, so severe
> weather here could definitely influence state consumption.
>
> > Yea, I can guess. But, I would argue that it is not based in reality.
If
> > it were then scientists who's jobs depended on commercial fusion would
have
> > to had falsified data under pressure from big oil. Plasmoid friends of
mine
> > would have to had lied to me over beers under pressure from big oil.
>
> I don't think anyone is falsifying data, I think that there are probably
more
> subtle ways to influence R&D.
But, the bottom line is that there was no progress in fusion. It is a much
harder problem than first envisoned. The oilmen's control can't include
determining the laws of nature, right. :-)
>And I think that Oil interests outside of the U.S. probably have a hand in
all of this too.
Well, of the top 25 richest people in the world, only 1 is in oil. Of the
top 50, 4 are. Why can't the other 46 see the great investment
opportunities that those 4 are trying to hide?
Why pick oil for that conspiricy? Of the top 50 companies outside of the
US, 2 are in oil. Of the top 50 in the US 5 are in oil.
> I don't think that they can control the economy, though I might note that
the
> two major energy crisis in my lifetime ('73 and '79) have been
orchestrated by
> OPEC.
That sorta overstates what happened. In 73, supplies were a lot tighter
than anyone knew. When OPEC cut off the spigot, the Texas Railway
Commission, which regulated oil wells in Texas, told all the companies that
were producing at 50% of official capacity to "turn on the spigots." As a
result, production went up about 5%. It turned out everyone was fudging on
what their capacity was.
In '82, the oil boom brought enough oil on the market, so that OPEC couldn't
affect the price by cutting output 5% or even 20%. Plus, unlike '73, when
they didn't have costs to rival oil income, the OPEC countries had increased
their spending.
You can see it in the price crash of 99. Increased efficiencies and new
fields were combined with the slowdown in Asia to produce a 3% glut. That
was enough to send prices from $20 to $10/barrel.
As an aside, I had discussions with an unnamed major oil company concerning
my developing a price model for them. I can't go into all the details, but I
found out how primitive the models really are.
I've been in the oil patch for about 20 years. I've known presidents of
billion dollar companies personally. Unless I read everyone totally wrong,
they had no idea what was going to happen. Indeed, they made moves just
before the price fall that ended up costing their company tons of money
because of the price fall.
I can't imagine that this conspiricy has existed for 20 years without anyone
getting wind. The oil patch is really a lot smaller than you might think.
>And I'd bet that the downturns didn't hurt the big fish in the industry
> anyway.
There were a lot of millionaires in '82 that were flat busted in '84. Lotsa
high rollers went belly up. If you look at other crashes, the rich lost a
lot of money in the crash. Indeed, the Great Depression saw an improvement
in income inequality, IIRC.
>
>If nuclear power (fission or fusion) threatens their turf, oil interests
should be
> expected to do what they can to intervene, legal, ethical, or not. The
extent
> to which it is happening is unknown, but I think it would be naive to
assume
> that they are sitting on their hands. Now part of that might be keeping
> prices artificially low, I don't know, just speculating.
>
Well, then my buddy must be part of the grand conspiricy becasue he invented
one of the two techniques that cut exploration costs $5.00 to
$10.00/barrel. But, he aint' rich. How do you explain that?
> I wish we could turn around the rise of consumption. Even in cases where
> resources are unlikely to be in short supply.
Well, in highly developed countries, per capita consumption is relatively
flat. It is reasonable to expect it to remain so. It could even drop.
But, keeping the world consumption flat requires keeping the world poor. Is
that worth the price?
>It's a trend based on wastefulness and disrespect for the resources our
planet has provided us.
No, its a trend based on the correlation between resource use and the wealth
of a nation. It is also based on the value of someone's time. Yes, people
should be more careful, but that will only cut world consumption down a few
percent. Increases in efficiency and productivity are the only real hope to
get more bang for the buck in terms of resources.
>IMO. If there is a choice between wasteful consumption and preserving the
natural
> beauty of the earth, I hope we choose preservation in as much as it is
> possible and practical.
>
Part of the problem is who decides what is wasteful? And who determines
aestetics? We all agree some wilderness should be set aside as untouched.
But, I live within half a mile of where an oil rig ran, and I'd be very hard
pressed to find it. During 3 months, it was noisy here at night, but that's
a seperate issue.
Can you imagine outlawing SUVs? Can you imagine a fine for taking too many
napkins? Would Americans stand for that?
If you want a conspiricy theory, though, I have one for you. Big oil is
funding the environmental movement. They know that those folks will stop
nuclear power, they knew that oil and gas are cleaner than coal, they
didn't really need offshore Calf and those Alaska wells to make money, and
they knew that the public wouldn't sacrifice in order to conserve.. That's
it, the leaders of GreenPeace are in the pay of a shiek in Saudi. :-)
Look at the debate on the danger from nuclear power. It has virtually shut
down
